Architectural theorist Charles lencks and his late wife Maggie Keswick, a historian and specialist in Asian gar- dening, also attempted to translate theoretical ideas about the fold into landscape architectural design. In 1988 they began laying out their Garden of Cosmic Spec- ulation in southern Scotland. Their initial plan was to devise a kitchen garden, but over the years it grew into a garden of about 120 hectares, a microcosm symbolizing the universe. Of the two designers, Jencks laid special emphasis on the invention of forms of waves and folds as a new grammar for landscape architecture capable of expressing the basic elements of nature discovered by recent science (lencks 2003, 17). Throughout the garden, Jencks offered direct illustration of the highly abstract forms of physics, originally generated under strictly controlled laboratory conditions, using them to form specific park elements (Figure 7). He transferred abstract formulas one-to-one into garden forms, thus conflating the abstract and the concrete. In his 1995 book The Architecture of the Jumping Universe, Jencks proposed complexity theory as a new basis for architectural theory, devoting a whole chap- ter to the question of the fold. Remarkably, his argu- ments on the fold did not take Deleuze or Leibniz as their starting point but were based on René Thorn's catastrophe theory. Here, catastrophe means various forms of phase transitions. Jencks picks out the "cusp catastrophe" for special consideration, whose diagram Thom rendered as a folded or undulated plane: an imminent decision follows for a while the crest of the wave and then unforeseeably and suddenly falls to one of the sides. Figure 6. Rebstockpark: Perspective view. ©Eisenman Architects. lake and the great meadow (Figure 8). But did he really need these spectacular hill sculptures to achieve the fu- sion of the two realms? They se, em to disrupt more than they connect. Each of Jencks's folded earth sculptures is merely one of a number of individual objects within a garden that might more fittingly be called a contem- porary "physics theme park." Here, new theories are illustrated didactically with rather naive symbolisms.6 The fold remains one formal object among others, and nowhere does it reach the goal of connecting element as Jencks interpreted it in Hadid's or Eisenman's proj- ects. His strategy of illustrating the overall phenomenon of the fold through the direct formal representation of a fold did not succeed and should be considered a "for- malistic fallacy" - the error of mistaking the abstract for the concrete, which Whitehead called the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness" (1937